For vs For
2021 Latest Caselaw 789 Tri

                             HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                   AGARTALA

                                CRP No.53 of 2021

For Appellant (s)        :      Mr. D.C. Roy, Adv.
For Respondent(s)        :      None

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Order 23.08.2021

Heard Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for

exercising the power of superintendence against the order dated 13.04.2018

passed by the executing court in the execution proceeding being case No.Ex.(T)

01 of 2011.

The petitioner herein is the decree holder in Title Suit No.27 of 1981

which was filed by the petitioner for declaration of right, title, interest and

recovery of possession by evicting the defendants, the respondents herein, from

the suit land. The trial court dismissed the suit by the judgment dated

07.11.1987 against which the title appeal was preferred before the District

Judge, West Tripura, Agartala being Title Appeal No.84 of 1987.

The appellate court allowed the suit and passed the judgment and decree

dated 15.11.1999 and 30.11.1999 respectively. It appears from the records that

after filing of the execution case No.Ex.(T) 01 of 2011 before the executing

court it came to the notice of the decree holder that there had been a change in

the description of the suit land in the decree passed by the appellate court. As a

result, a petition was filed before the executing court for correcting the

description on the basis of the plaint, there was a discrepancy in the description

of the suit land, by the order dated 13.04.2018 the execution petition was

dismissed. At the time of dismissing the execution petition, the executing court

recorded that it does not have any jurisdiction or authority to correct the

description of the suit land as recorded by the appellate court.

Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously

argued before this court that the executing court ought to have corrected the

description of the suit on the basis of the records. This court is not charmed or

persuaded by such submission and finds no merit in such contention.

Accordingly, this court is inclined to dismiss this petition and accordingly, it is

ordered.

However, before parting with the records, it is observed that by following

the appropriate procedure, if the description of the suit land could be modified

by the decree holder, the dismissal of the proceeding being case No.Ex.(T) 01 of

2011 will not stand in the way of filing a subsequent execution proceeding, if it

is otherwise permitted by law.

There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Sujay